A recent survey found that "54 percent of Canadians like preparing to file their taxes," and that "57 percent say their files are organized throughout the year." The results would indicate that our friends to the north are a bit off, pathological liars or maybe it's because they're actually capable of having a sense of humor about the whole process. [CGA]
Related Posts
IRS Issues an Apology to Same Sex Couples It Yelled at For Doing Their Taxes Wrong
Gay and lesbian couples in California got an “I’m sorry” from the IRS last week after robo-letters went out to same-sex couples who filed under new IRS rules which recognize their relationships for the first time in states with community property rules (California, Nevada and Washington). That means joint property is divided 50/50, regardless of who wears the pants (or the dress) in the couple.
Scott James has the scoop via the Bay Citizen:
The change to the tax code, put into effect for 2010, was supposed to be a step toward equal treatment by the I.R.S.
Instead, couples have faced a litany of conflicts. The latest involves at least 300 taxpayers who have had their returns rejected with terse letters signed by an enigmatic I.R.S. employee named J. Bell from Fresno.
“Your return includes income or tax liability for more than one taxpayer, other than husband and wife,” the letters read. Note: husband and wife. Not two husbands, or two wives.
Couples who received the letters had to produce additional paperwork and faced delays in receiving refunds; most were forced to hire tax professionals.
In a statement this week, the I.R.S. said that the letters had been “incorrectly sent” because of a processing error and that it “apologizes for this mistake and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to taxpayers.”
Santa Clara University law school professor Patricia Cain has an excellent blog on the subject of same sex taxes. Of the IRS apology, she said “Just to be clear, in my view, the battle is not between us and the IRS. The IRS wants to do the right thing. It wants to tax each citizen on the right amount of income under existing law. That is its job. However, the IRS is seriously hampered from promulgating rules that apply to same-sex couples by the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The IRS is to be commended for understanding that DOMA cannot usurp state property law. Thus I continue to applaud its decision about how to tax community income of same-sex couples. And now that the IRS understands how difficult it is to communicate these new rules, even to its own employees, I applaud them again — this time for their apology — which, by the way, I accept.”
Let me give the IRS a tip: you need money, right? Same sex couples have it. They do all the things other taxpayers do – buy stuff, work, pay their taxes. All they are asking for is equal treatment under tax laws. If straight couples can get trapped in loveless marriages and file jointly, why can’t gays have the same rights?
We all deserve to be miserable, overtaxed and sexless.
What Are Your Taxes Buying Hollywood?
The former head of the Iowa Film Office was charged this week with “unfelonious misconduct in office” for his role in a scandal in which filmmakers bought themselves everything from featherbeds to Benzes with money advanced by the taxpayers of Iowa.
The Hawkeye State fell big time for the film credit fad that swept the country in recent years. Iowa had two 25% tax credits, one for filmmakers and one for investors. As interpreted by Mr. Wheeler (but not the Attorney General), the credits together could add up to 50% of film costs incurred in state, making it perhaps the most generous such giveaway in the country.
Better yet, the credits are transferable, so filmmakers can sell them at a discount to raise money. The program had no caps, meaning that Iowa could give away money as fast as Hollywood could spend it.
The entire program was managed by Mr. Wheeler, almost by himself. And did he ever manage it. According to the Iowa Attorney General:
Defendant Wheeler permitted filmmakers… to utilize “payments in kind” including “services in kind” in support of claimed expenditures for tax credits. Under defendant Wheeler’s direction, Iowa’s film program became one of the few, if not the only, state film incentive program in the nation to allow credit for “services in kind.”…Examples included “sponsorship agreements” in which intangible assets (such as reciprocal web links, product placement and marketing agreements) were traded with no money changing hands. These non-cash “expenditures” sometimes constituted the majority of the filmmakers entire alleged budget.
For a brief glitzy moment, Iowa was overrun with film crews and starlets helping themselves to a bountiful harvest.
The party ended last fall with revelations that Iowans helped buy a Mercedes and a Land Rover for a producer via film credits. Mr. Wheeler lost his job, and now he stands charged with a “serious misdemeanor.” Two filmmakers are charged with felony theft for inflating their expenses while claiming credits.
But if Mr. Wheeler is criminally inept, what about the bosses that left him alone and unsupervised to give away over $30 million so far? And what about the 147 legislators — out of 150 — who thought it would be a good idea to give Hollywood a blank check? And you thought “Music Man” was fiction.
But lest you think too badly about the rubes in Iowa, forty-four states are giving taxpayer money to Hollywood. Chances are that your legislator is taking money from you and giving it to those nice Hollywood people. Remember that next time your legislator says you aren’t paying enough taxes.
One of the Guys That Wrote the Mother of All Corporate Tax Textbooks Has Died
[caption id="attachment_29325" align="alignright" width="260" caption="Some interesting interpretations have occurred here."]
[/caption]
[/caption]
James Eustice, who co-authored Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders with Boris Bittker, died yesterday at 77. He was a Gerald L. Wallace Professor of Taxation Emeritus at NYU and counsel at Cooley LLP.
This epic book is more appropriately referred to as a “treatise” but it probably served as your primary source of information for your corporate tax classes.
For anyone not familiar with B&E, it’s quite the impressive piece of work and would be an excellent weapon of choice in a tax nerd duel. I personally never assaulted anyone with my copy but it did come in handy when I had trouble sleeping in grad school.
Anyone else with fond memories of B&E are invited to share them.
Death of Jim Eustice [TaxProf Blog]